In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

332 Chapter 9 Theft Handbooks: J. H. Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren (Leipzig 1905–­ 15) 399–­ 401, 438–­ 43; A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens (Oxford 1968–­ 71) 1.206–­ 7, 234–­ 35; 2.15, 78, 81–­ 82, 177, 221–­ 32; D. M. MacDowell, The Law in Classical Athens (Ithaca, NY 1978) 147–­ 49; S. C. Todd, The Shape of Athenian Law (Oxford 1993) 79–­ 81, 117–­ 19, 139–­ 40, 283–­ 84, 307–­ 12; R. Parker, “Law and Religion,” in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, ed. M. Gagarin-­ D. Cohen (Cambridge 2005) 61–­ 81, esp. 63–­ 65. Studies : K. Latte, “Beiträge zum griechischen Strafrecht,” Hermes 66 (1931) 30–­ 48, 129–­ 58; L. Gernet, “Note sur la notion de délit privé en droit grec,” in Droits de l’antiquité et sociologie juridique: Mélanges Henri Lévy-­ Bruhl (Paris 1959) 393–­ 405; M. H. Hansen, Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C. and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians (Odense 1975), esp. 28, 32, 45–­ 46, 119; idem, Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis against Kakourgoi, Atimoi and Pheugontes (Odense 1976), esp. 36–­ 53; S. Bianchetti, “Osservazioni sulla ΓΡΑΦΗ ΙΕΡΟΣΥΛΙΑΣ e sulla ΓΡΑΦΗ ΚΛΟΠΗΣ ΙΕΡΩΝ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΩΝ,” Studi e Ricerche (Istituto di Storia, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Università degli Studi di Firenze) 2 (Florence 1983) 55–­ 61; D. Cohen, Theft in Athenian Law (Munich 1983), with review by D. M. MacDowell, CR n.s. 34 (1984) 229–­ 31; T. Saunders, “Plato and the Athenian Law of Theft,” in P. Cartledge-­ P. Millett-­ S. Todd, eds., Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society (Cambridge 1990) 63–­82; I. Moneti, “La ‘γραφὴ κλοπῆς’ nel diritto attico,” Civiltà Classica e Cristiana 12 (1991) 7–­ 10; E. M. Harris, “‘In the Act’ or ‘Red-­ Handed’? Apagoge to the Eleven and Furtum Manifestum,” in Symposion 1993: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, ed. G. Thür (Köln 1994) 169–­ 84; G. Thür, “Sachverfolgung und Diebstahl in den griechischen Poleis (Dem. 32, Lys. 23, IC IV 72 I, IPArk 32 u. 17),” in Symposion 1999, ed. G. Thür and F. J. Fernández Nieto (Köln 2003) 57–­ 96. Theft • 333 Thefts can be categorized in various ways, depending, for example, on what and how a person steals. Accordingly, Athenian sources employ a variety of terms, often with legal significance, to describe theft and theft-­ related offenses (see especially 280, 283). The general term, klopê (“theft”), has a corresponding verb kleptein (“to steal”) and agent noun kleptês (“thief”). The manner of theft may be described by verbs including hyphairein (“to steal, to remove secretly”), which denotes clandestine theft; harpazein (“to snatch, to rob”), which denotes forcible theft (in our terms, robbery); aphairein (“to take away, to deprive,” by force or otherwise); and aposterein (“to deprive, to withhold, to rob, to embezzle ”), which is regularly used of the wrongful appropriation of entrusted property (in our terms, embezzlement). The noun toichôrychia (“wall-­ digging”; verb toichôrychein, agent noun toichôrychos) refers to the act of digging through a house wall (with the presumed intent to steal or to commit another offense) and thus constitutes, in our terms, a form of burglary or breaking and entering. Special categories based (in part) on the object of theft included clothes-­ snatching (lôpodysia; verb lôpodytein, agent noun lôpodytês), purse-­cutting (verb ballantiotomein , agent noun ballantiotomos), and temple-­ robbery (hierosylia; verb hierosylein , agent noun hierosylos). The verbal phrase pherein kai agein, “to carry [scil. portable property] and lead (away) [scil. slaves and livestock],” commonly used of the plundering of enemy territory in war, also appears in the context of non-­ wartime theft (2 IG I3 104, at lines 37–­ 38; 3g Dem. 23.60). The earliest surviving Athenian laws that deal with theft are Draco’s provisions permitting the self-­ help killing of a highway robber, presumably if done in self-­ defense (3f Dem. 23.53), and of a person caught in the act of robbing the killer, if done in immediate self-­ defense (2 IG I3 104, at lines 37–­ 38; 3g Dem. 23.60). These were among the Draconian homicide laws that remained in force after Solon’s recension (6b [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 7.1; 266). For the existence and contents of Draco’s laws on theft per se, which were annulled by Solon, we have only meager sources (266, 284). Plutarch’s implication that Draco punished all thefts with death (266) reflects Classical and...

Share